Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-01 > 0980957255

From: "D. Spencer Hines" <>
Subject: Re: Amie de Gaveston
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:07:35 -0000
References: <>

This doesn't make any more sense the second time around than it did the

Speculation sans Evidence.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one
by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." -- Edmund
Burke -- Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents [April 23,

"You could not stand five minutes with that man [Burke] beneath a shed
while it rained, but you must be convinced you had been standing with
the greatest man you had ever seen." Samuel Johnson [1709-1784],
_Johnsonian Miscellanies [1897], edited by G.B. Hill, vol. 1, p.290

"On rsiste l'invasion des armes; on ne rsiste pas l'invasion des

Victor Hugo

All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.

All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.

Vires et Honor

<> wrote in message news:...
| In a message dated 1/31/01 2:35:47 AM,

| writes:
| << Not a valid substitute for evidence. Case Closed. >>
| Not hardly. There is another alternative that makes much more sense.
| only proved that Amy was illegitimate, not who her parents were.
| One theory that I just shared with John Parsons -- and the one that
makes the
| most sense to me -- is that Amy was not the child born in 1312, but
born out
| of wedlock to Margaret after Piers died. That would still make her a
| Gaveston, yet she would still be illegitimate and incapable of
| Margaret's estates.
| I really think that the fact Amy being in court with Isabella is a
very big
| hump. Isabella simply would not have permitted a daughter of the hated
| to serve in her court.
| #1 There is a problem in chronology with Amy's marriage. Her being the
| born in 1312 would make her 22 at marriage and that is really far too
old for
| a first marriage for that class.
| Instead, I think that the child born in 1312 did not survive. I
propose that
| Amy was born later, out of wedlock, after Piers was dead. That would
help the
| chronology of her marriage and also explain why she did not inherit
the de
| Clare estates.
| #2. Margaret got the estates of Occam Rutland from Edward II,
probably as a
| dower. Later, Amy owned some houses on this same estate! Where did
she get
| them? It makes real sense that she got the from her mother, Margaret.
| is a major piece of evidence, I believe, and my attention was called
to it by
| Doug Thompson.
| #3. Regarding the fine and Amy being referred to as the daughter of
| Amy would have been known as Gaveston if she was born out-of-wedlock
| Piers death and before Margaret remarried. Out of respect for her
mother, she
| would be referred to as the daughter of Piers, even if he were dead
when she
| was conceived.
| #4. Isabella and Margaret could easily have forged a common link
| their mutual hatred of their husbands during the course of their
| marriages. Hugh DeSpencer was a brother-in-law to Margaret (wife of
| sister). Margaret was treated badly by him.
| #5. Hugh de Audley, Margaret's 2nd husband was close to Roger
| There is much more to this than has yet been explored, I am sure.
| I realize that Robert Todd theorized that Amy was the child born in
1314. I
| think that is the major error he made with his theory.
| - Ken
| Kenneth Harper Finton
| Editor and Publisher
| __________________________________________
| HT Communications / PO Box 1401 / Arvada CO 80001
| VOICE: 303-420-4888 FAX: 303-420-4845
| <A HREF="">;

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

This thread: